Reseñas 395

Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 395 - 399

NG, EVA N. S. & CREZEE, INEKE H. M. INTERPRETING IN LEGAL

AND

HEALTHCARE SETTINGS: PERSPECTIVES ON RESEARCH AND

TRAINING

. AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA, JOHN BENJAMINS, 2020,

351 PP., ISBN 978-90-272-0504-9

By bringing together a selection of papers from the First International

Conference on Legal and Healthcare Interpreting, held in Hong Kong in 2017,

and additional contributions, Eva Ng and Ineke Crezee provide a snapshot of

current research in these prominent subdomains of community interpreting

(CI), also known as public service interpreting. The papers present research

from a variety of countries ranging from Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong,

and Macedonia, to Spain, with a relatively strong representation from the latter

country (five out of thirteen contributions).

Since the 1990s, CI has emerged as a research domain within

Interpreting Studies. Until that time, researchers had focused primarily on

conference interpreting, particularly on the practice of simultaneous

interpreting. Whereas early studies were experimental and conducted from a

psychological perspective (e.g., Gerver, 1975), the foundations of empirical

research on interpreting as a linguistic and cognitive communicative process

were laid by Kade (1968), Chernov (1979/2002), Seleskovitch and Lederer

(1989), and later consolidated by Gile (1995), Kurz (1996) and Moser-Mercer

(1996), to name but a few researchers. As a result of the social turn

(Pöchhacker, 2016) as well as of immigration flows in most western European

countries, leading to a growing need for community interpreters, CI research

gained importance. More recently, the groundbreaking works by Wadensjö

(1998) and Mason (2001), both of whom understood interpreting as a time-

and context-bound interactional process, determined the basis for current CI

research.

Today, research on CI still continues to expand, with settings under

investigation becoming increasingly diverse, as demonstrated by the

emergence of studies on non-professional interpreting (Antonini et al., 2017)

such as child language brokering (Antonini, 2015), as well as highly

specialised contexts, for example, faith-related interpreting and interpreting in

war and conflict zones (Tipton & Furmanek, 2016). In spite of this growing

fragmentation of contexts (De Boe et al., 2021), there are just two main

headings under which the varied settings can be classified, as exemplified by

this edited volume: legal interpreting and healthcare interpreting. The

distinction between the two domains under investigation is maintained

throughout the book, which is divided into two parts, each dedicated to either

domain. Although this makes the work well organised and transparent, at the

same time, it seems a missed opportunity for looking into possible overlaps

396 Esther de Boe

Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 395 - 399

and similarities between research topics and outcomes across the two

domains, which in reality are less clear-cut, as demonstrated in the individual

chapters.

In their introductory chapter, Ng and Crezee state that legal and

healthcare interpreting stand out from other contexts of CI «not only because

interpreters need to manage highly specialised knowledge and terminology»,

but also «because the stakes of working in these contexts are so high that

interpreting mistakes can become, literally, a matter of life and death, or result

in a miscarriage of injustice» (p. 1). Their introduction is divided between the

domains of justice and healthcare, starting with legal interpreting (Section 2,

p. 2). This section summarises the main research topics in legal settings,

including the role of the interpreter and the conflict between professional

codes and day-to-day practice, accuracy, reported speech, remote

interpreting, sign language interpreting, the specificities of asylum settings,

stand-by interpreting, and training. The subsequent section (Section 3, p. 4)

presents an overview of healthcare interpreting research. According to the

editors, this domain is characterised mostly by its diversity in settings and

topics that often require a specific approach by the interpreter. For example,

in speech pathology, it may be important to provide metalinguistic information

as to how something was said, whereas in end-of-life care, the emphasis will

be on interpersonal skills. Research topics include the benefits of healthcare

interpreting for patients, ethical dilemmas, accuracy, impartiality, the

interpreter’s role, advocacy and brokering, and training issues.

Three of the chapters in the first part are dedicated to court room

interpreting and indicate a clear gap between, on the one hand, training and

policy, and, on the other, courtroom practice. Chapter 4 presents a survey by

Wan Kei Wong of Australian courtroom interpreters. It shows that almost half

of the participating interpreters indicated never to prepare for an assignment,

in spite of the importance generally attached to preparation in interpreter

training, as well as in the «Recommended National Standards for Working

with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals» (RNS, 2017)

. According to Wan

Kei Wong, this is due to interpreters’ lack of access to relevant documents, as

well as to the local court culture, which «inhibits initiatives by interpreters to

proactively request materials» (p. 85) for fear of being excluded from future

assignments. The author therefore pleads for a systematic transformation of

this culture and a more thorough implementation of the RNS. Within the same

settings, Chapters 1 and 2 are both concerned with the importance of

knowledge of the specific courtroom discourse. Whereas Ng (Chapter 1)

shows that wavering the right to an interpreter by non-native speakers of

English in Hong Kong impedes the delivery of justice, Burn and Crezee

https://ausit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/National-Standards_Court-Interpreters.pdf

Reseñas 397

Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 395 - 399

(Chapter 2) demonstrate how crucial discourse characteristics went unnoticed

by students of legal interpreting in New Zealand. Discourse knowledge is also

a central theme in Xu’s research (Chapter 5), focusing on turn-taking

management. From this research on lawyer-client interviews, it appears that

both lawyers and interpreters frequently intervene in the interaction to ensure

the observation of turn-taking rules for the benefit of the interpreters, although

lawyers do prioritise their own professional goals. The notion of intervention is

further discussed by Todorova (Chapter 3), be it in an entirely different

context, that is, refugee settings in emergency situations in Macedonia.

Todorova compares the role of the interpreters in this context to the one of

conflict mediators, to conclude that as much as there are no truly neutral

mediators, there are no genuinely neutral interpreters in conflict zones. The

author takes a stance against the traditional view of the interpreter as an

impartial conduit and uses her own experience with this type of interpreting to

complement the analysis of the interviews with interpreters. As such, she

explicitly moves away from a purely empirical approach. All contributions

signal the need for specific training and awareness-raising, for example, to

make trainees better acquainted with illocutionary force and intent in lawyer-

witness discourse (Burn & Crezee, Chapter 2) and to train interpreters in turn-

management, which can help them meet their professional goals (Xu, Chapter

5).

Not surprisingly, therefore, a significant part of the volume is dedicated

to training. Both in Spain, Blasco Mayor (Chapter 6) discusses the training of

legal interpreters and translators, while Del-Pozo-Trivino’s research (Chapter

8) responds to the need for teamwork between police staff and interpreters.

The contribution by Ortega-Herráez (Chapter 7) further completes our view of

the Spanish situation by looking into the role of professional associations in

the adoption of newly introduced legal provisions for legal interpreters and

translators.

The second part of the book, revolving around healthcare interpreting,

also strongly emphasises the need for training and awareness of each other’s

roles by the different stakeholders involved in the interpreting process.

Interestingly, the authors adopt different perspectives, ranging from the

perceptions of healthcare providers (Foulquié-Rubio & Beteta-Férnandez,

Chapter 10), to interpreters (Hlavac, Surla & Zucchi, Chapter 12) and both

groups (Crezee & Jülich, Chapter 9). Crezee and Jülich report on differences

between healthcare providers and healthcare interpreters in their expectations

towards the role of the latter group, in particular in some important areas such

as impartiality, visibility of the interpreter and confidentiality. The findings of

their survey show that health professionals need to be better informed about

interpreters’ role boundaries. Foulquié-Rubio and Beteta-Férnandez (Chapter

10) investigated the perspective of healthcare providers by means of a survey

398 Esther de Boe

Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 395 - 399

among nurses in a paediatric emergency department in Spain, revealing that

nurses feel that language barriers interfere with their professional aims. Based

on these findings, the authors express the need for protocols on language

policy in emergency departments. Language barriers, in particular those

related to the often complex discourse of health providers and patients, are

also investigated by Hlavac et al. (Chapter 13), whose survey further explores

interpreters’ accounts of situational and physical features of interaction in

mental health settings. Although the authors highlight the specific demands of

this type of interpreting, their call for a «constructive working alliance» (p. 377)

between health providers and interpreters, for example, by means of briefings

before and after interactions, is perfectly in line with the call by many of the

papers in this volume (including the part on legal interpreting), for a closer and

more efficient cooperation between all participants in CI events.

The two remaining contributions in the second part of the book also

demonstrate the importance of collaboration and training, by looking into the

professionalisation of healthcare interpreting. Leung (Chapter 11) focuses on

the very recent emergence of healthcare interpreting in Hong Kong and

predicts its likely disappearance due to its low status and remuneration.

Leung’s work also shows the urgency for better regulations and closer

cooperation between users and practitioners. In the same vein, Valero-Garcés

(Chapter 12) reports on collaboration in healthcare interpreting via the project

INTER+MED. This aimed to mitigate language barriers in primary care in the

region of Madrid (Spain) by creating a team of professional interpreters and

intercultural mediators, which was closely monitored by researchers. By

means of surveys and interviews with the mediators, valuable information was

elicited concerning the difficulties they encounter in their day-to-day

professional reality. As opposed to Leung, Valero-Garcés expects an

increased use of language services, thanks to the project. However, in line

with the other papers in the volume, the author highlights the lack of solid

regulations concerning the use of interpreting services and calls for greater

interdisciplinarity.

In spite of the contextual and geographical variety the collected papers

represent, their common ground can be categorised into four key issues: a

need for cooperation, interdisciplinarity, training, and awareness-raising.

These are likely avenues of future CI research.

EFERENCES

Antonini, R. (2015). Child language brokering. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.),

Routledge Encyclopedia of interpreting studies (p. 48). London:

Routledge.

Reseñas 399

Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 395 - 399

Antonini, R., Cirillo, L., Rossato, L., & Torresi, I. (Eds.) (2017). Non-

professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the art and future of

an emerging field of research. John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.129

Chernov, G. V. (1979/2002). Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in

simultaneous interpretation, in F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.),

The interpreting studies reader (pp. 99–109). Routledge.

De Boe, E., Balogh, K., & Salaets, H. (2021). The impact of context on

community interpreting research, practice & training. Linguistica

Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 20. doi:

10.52034/lanstts.v20i.695

Gerver, D. (1975). A psychological approach to simultaneous interpreting.

Meta 20(2), 119–128. doi:10.7202/002885ar

Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator

training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.8(1st)

Kade, O. (1968). Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig:

Verlag Enzyklopädie.

Kurz, I. (1996). Interpreting: Sound vs. sound and picture. The Jerome

Quarterly, 12(1), 5–14.

Mason, I. (2001). Triadic exchanges. Studies in dialogue interpreting.

Manchester: St Jerome Publishing

Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues.

The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 7, 43–55.

Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.

doi:10.4324/9781315649573

Seleskovitch, D. & Lederer, M. (1989). Pédagogie raisonnée de

l’interprétation. Paris/Brussels : Didier Érudition/OPOCE.

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York:

Longman.

Tipton, R., & Furmanek, O. (2016). Dialogue interpreting: A guide to

interpreting in public services and the community. London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644578

STHER DE BOE]